Controlling multiple instances of expression with a MIDI controller

I think the missing link was the arming of the tracks to record. I had not armed all the tracks.

I just recreated Experiment 1 and armed all the tracks and viola! It worked. So that seems to be the easiest way to do what I want. Separate Midi channels for each instrument I want to edit. Not only that when I record the midi automation data is recorded and then as teh track cycles it is automatically overwritten so I can just cycle endlessly and refine my expression.

Can I just check on one basic point please. It is the case that I can only have 16 Midi channels maximum in any one project? That would mean I can only edit 16 tracks at a time, and would have to go in and edit Midi channels of tracks I have already mixed, to remove them from that Midi channel before assigning it to another track. 16 channels is actually enough for what I want to acheive...that is probably the maximum number of channels I can realistically handle with an 8 fader/2 bank midi mixer anyway....so I would just be seeking to avoid a lot of editing of Midi channel numbers. Having to swap Midi channels around would make it a bit cumbersome to move up and down the project while editing. I can do that if I have to but....you know...

...It is the case that I can only have 16 Midi channels maximum in any one project? That would mean I can only edit 16 tracks at a time, and would have to go in and edit Midi channels of tracks I have already mixed, to remove them from that Midi channel before assigning it to another track....

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean... But you can only record to 16 discrete tracks in one go, yes.

I think the missing link was the arming of the tracks to record. I had not armed all the tracks.

a-HA! That was step 4 of my 4 steps. Good to hear that it worked in the end.

I thought you might like to hear what the outcome of all this was. I did indeed manage to set up the MPK25 with 12 knobs to control the expression simultaneously of 12 different instances of CS instruments in Kontakt. So that worked in the end. However....I found that.....

1. In order to get any visual feedback I had to keep the 12 Kontakt panels all open at the same time and that became very tedious to manage even though I have two screens. Without the visual feedback it was very hard to manage.

2. An array of knobs is not laid out so well for mixing....harder to know which one to reach for. A panel of faders is the way to go. But I don't think I need to rush out now and buy a physical mixer, and have now started experimenting with both Logic Remote and TouchOSC

3. The killer issue was that the piece I am working on has a lot of extended quiet passages at the beginning (a third of the entire piece) and once I started really mixing at the expression levels I desired (with the knobs on my MPK25), I realised that the CS samples are not at all suited to a collection of instruments all playing very quietly - the samples actually contain a fair bit of noise that all adds up to significant part of the total sound in quiet passages. The noise has a gated, stop/start feel to it, there are faint clicks and it accumulates over a number of tracks into something that sounds like a very quiet shaker being heard from far off ....quite crappy to be honest. There is quite a bit of online chat about this problem in most string libraries, so I know that's just the way it is. Although I think CS patches will have their uses, this quiet passages in this project will not be one of them.

I am now going to explore my SWAM string collection as a means of achieving my goal. For that I will play each track individually (again!...sigh! ) and use my TEControl BBC2 breath controller. I am not anxious about all this...I am retired and have both the time and the motivation to learn slowly and experiment. So thanks again for your help. You were probably shaking your heads and wondering why the hell I wanted to do it that way at all......yeah....well I can understand that. But I had to try, and now I know!

I have made a separate post below with one final supplementary question.

Thanks again ......if I could send you each a carton of beer I would. We call them "slabs" over here. We need a way to send virtual slabs.

My supplementary question....

While fooling around with track stacks I came across this problem. I was starting up a sequence of different projects with 4 MIDI track, trying out the things you suggested, usually by saving an existing project under a new name. One had the summing stack, which I did not want any more so I tried to delete the summing stack and just leave me with the four individual tracks I had started out with. I found "flatten stack" and did that. The summing stack disappeared from the tracks area and it looked like I had just restored my four individual tracks. I did my experiments with that new project and all seemed fine. I thought I just had 4 individual tracks.

However, this morning I have been doing extensive reading about different ways to organise projects, including VCA's, busses, and stacks - fascinating and very useful indeed - they will play a big part for me now. I opened the little project with what I though were 4 individual tracks and went to the mixer......and to my surprise there was the summing channel strip in the mixer.

What is going on here? Can I unstack a summing stack and get rid of the sum channel strip? Or is it a one way journey once you create a summing stack.

When I tried to delete the sum channel strip by selecting it in the mixer, it stayed right there but the focussed track in the tracks area disappeared. Cmd Z got it back. Now that track is called . I clicked on it and tried to change the name but when I type it in and hit enter it goes back to and refuses to be edited. Strangely though the instrument name in the mixer IS changed. You can see all this in the attached image.

Regarding your supplementary question....:

That is probably due to the (I/O) audio routing that was established when creating a (Summing) Stack.

IOW, when creating a summing stack, the members-channelstrips's outputs are rerouted from their original's (default stereo) to the Bus that is therefore used (also) as the stack's master's Input.

Flattening the stack, rearrange the mixer's (and the track's) layout, but doesn't alter the I/O audio routing that was established during the stack's creation.

I believe that is to prevent from losing audio of those flattened tracks (channelstrips).

Otherwise, deleting the stack's master track/channelstrip would also delete the audio link that stack's master was making between the stacks members channelstrips and the project's main audio output.

For Logic to reroute automatically the outputs as expected, it would have to guess how the user actually wants them to be. And that would not necessarily be back to the default stereo...

Perhaps Logic could eventually do so, but on a complex mix, that could arise confusion. Especially when there are many stacks that might be outputting to other than the default stereo project's main output, and/or which project could feature more than just the usual stereo scheme.

In short, I may be wrong but, I don't think it's currently possible, as it would imply Logic ability to read one's mind (and the day it will, I will start being quite concerned! ).

One possible solution to go back to just the tracks/channelstrip original configuration,

• once the stack flattened,
  
• go in the mixer, select the stack's ex-members channelstrips,
  
• change their outputs from the Bus to Stereo (or other desired destination),
  
• then select the ex-master channelstrip,
  
• set its input to No Input (facultative)
  
• and finally head to the Mixer's local Edit menu and chose Delete.

Admittedly cumbersome(!)

There might be other methods (that I am not aware of)...

Perhaps other will chime in...

I thought you might like to hear what the outcome of all this was. I did indeed manage to set up the MPK25 with 12 knobs to control the expression simultaneously of 12 different instances of CS instruments in Kontakt. So that worked in the end. However....I found that.....

 

1. In order to get any visual feedback I had to keep the 12 Kontakt panels all open at the same time and that became very tedious to manage even though I have two screens. Without the visual feedback it was very hard to manage.

2. An array of knobs is not laid out so well for mixing....harder to know which one to reach for. A panel of faders is the way to go. But I don't think I need to rush out now and buy a physical mixer, and have now started experimenting with both Logic Remote and TouchOSC

3. The killer issue was that the piece I am working on has a lot of extended quiet passages at the beginning (a third of the entire piece) and once I started really mixing at the expression levels I desired (with the knobs on my MPK25), I realised that the CS samples are not at all suited to a collection of instruments all playing very quietly - the samples actually contain a fair bit of noise that all adds up to significant part of the total sound in quiet passages. The noise has a gated, stop/start feel to it, there are faint clicks and it accumulates over a number of tracks into something that sounds like a very quiet shaker being heard from far off ....quite crappy to be honest. There is quite a bit of online chat about this problem in most string libraries, so I know that's just the way it is. Although I think CS patches will have their uses, this quiet passages in this project will not be one of them.

I am now going to explore my SWAM string collection as a means of achieving my goal. For that I will play each track individually (again!...sigh! ) and use my TEControl BBC2 breath controller. I am not anxious about all this...I am retired and have both the time and the motivation to learn slowly and experiment.

So thanks again for your help. You were probably shaking your heads and wondering why the hell I wanted to do it that way at all......yeah....well I can understand that. But I had to try, and now I know!

I have made a separate post below with one final supplementary question.

Thanks again

......if I could send you each a carton of beer I would. We call them "slabs" over here. We need a way to send virtual slabs.

You gave me the clue I needed JakobP. I went back into the project and each of the tracks was still bussed to the summing mixer. I changed the output for each track to stereo out and so then there was nothing going to the bus. I was then able to delete the channel strip for the summing stack with no ill effects. So it was actually very easy to get rid of. I will be a little more relaxed about using summing stacks now, knowing that I will not be stuck with them forever if I screw it up.

Regarding using my ears for mixing, that was exactly what I wanted to do. In the full orchestral mix if found it very difficult to refine with hand written automation, and I also found it impossible to get the levels right in the initial performance. So I wanted to sit there listening and have the ability to shift faders and refine the mix in real time - it is very hard to hear small changes in one instrument in a big orchestral mix so it would have been an intense listening exercise, gradually converging on the final mix through repeated passes. The reason I wanted to see the Kontakt instances on screen was because of the diabolical difficulty I had setting it all up. The MPK25 is very clunky to use (it is old technology these days) I spent a lot of time setting it up, so rather than mix by watching the Kontakt screen, I just wanted to able to check them to be sure that they were all working. Mixing with knobs sucks I have decided though!

Regarding the CS library. I have done a quite a bit of reading on that topic today..... there is quite a bit online.. It is a known issue with the CS libraries, but it is a known issue with most other libraries as well. Since the noise is actually fairly low, it only became an issue for me at very low volume levels, which is exactly where I wanted to work. The SWAM instruments have no noise of course, but they present other challenges. For all aspects of expression I will use my TecContol BBC2 which is a magic thing indeed. However, I am going to have to write the parts out by hand now and play them in one by one, individually. The use of the Logic Score editor has now got my attention and will become the subject of another post when I hit send on this one.